Riddles in RP's (whats your opinion.)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

hey, do you guys feel that posing riddles to the players hurts the rp, cause I kinda do. it just kind of irks me when a wizard with an intelligence of 20 doesn't know the answer to a riddle but the barbarian with an intelligent score of 5 does. I mean, there have been times where i've played a character whose smarter than I am, but because I don't know the answer to a question. he doesn't know, which I kinda think defeats the purpose of role playing.

anyway, what do you guys think?


Personally I'm terrible with them. Not my characters, but me.

That said, I usually give them my best shot all the same. With my two different GMs, one is really good about giving hints based on your character stats (since I'm not a 20 Int wizard obviously). The other makes you work it out on your own. It can get really frustrating in the latter game for the reasons you mentioned above and drag down an otherwise really fun game which is too bad.

When I run them myself I let the party tackle them with some insight based on their intuition (wisdom) and knowledge (intelligence), getting different hints depending which they roll and how well they succeed. It's not meant to be something to get hung up on and frustrated over so I try put all the tools in their hands to get past the challenge. I also allow hero points to be spent for larger hints or to bypass it entirely (though they lose potential exp/rewards in that case).


Of course, there is always the possibility that a less smart character can get a riddle because it happens to fall within their area of expertise. An average intelligence craftsman can be more knowledgeable in his craft than a genius wizard, and if the riddle impinges on his field, can be the one that 'gets it'

And I've known plenty of smart people that weren't great at riddles, and otherwise a bit slow people who were actually rather good at riddles. It's not necessarily a one to one relationship with intelligence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the OP. While riddles in fantasy lit have a long and noble history, it's no more fair to expect Gandalf's player to be a lore master than it is to expect Aragorn's to be a master woodsman or Legolas' an expert archer. A blind player should be able to role play Legolas by rolling dice and narrating appropriately. Similarly, someone with little English should be able to solve the "speak, friend, and enter" riddle.

The problem is that while rolling dice for archery is fun, rolling dice for puzzle solving just feels lame. So I generally recommend against.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's simple: if you have players that like riddles and puzzles, give them riddles and puzzles. If they don't like them, then don't because it will be a pointless waste of time.


RDM42 wrote:

Of course, there is always the possibility that a less smart character can get a riddle because it happens to fall within their area of expertise. An average intelligence craftsman can be more knowledgeable in his craft than a genius wizard, and if the riddle impinges on his field, can be the one that 'gets it'

And I've known plenty of smart people that weren't great at riddles, and otherwise a bit slow people who were actually rather good at riddles. It's not necessarily a one to one relationship with intelligence.

well that doesn't solve or fix anything because a character who has no expertise in particular riddles player can still solve it and a player who's character should know the answer wouldn't.

((also I am the op, Im new to the forum and haven't figured out how to change my avatar name))


I love riddles/puzzles and wish there were more in the games I PC in. Sadly, though, I have never roleplayed with anyone else that liked them. Not even a little bit.

And I like when the player gets to solve them rather than the 26 Int wizard just rolling and getting it right. It's not like the 26 Int wizard can just roll int to cast the very best spell at the enemies, or place that cloudkill perfecly, or move tactically around the battlefield, or automatically choose his own magical gear...

The game has a lot of room for players to make decisions and solve problems with minimal character input. But yet, while you see a push for automating solving puzzles all the time, you never see one for automating combat....


I like riddles if they're well implemented. Most of the time they are not. If you're in the forgotten temple of the snake god for example your riddle should not be about a modern card game. It's been a few years since I've seen one in a game, and I'm not sure I've ever seen one that was well suited to the scenario.

I'm personally a fan (I like puzzle games/puzzles in games), but if it's breaking RP then implement easier riddles, or make them knowledge check based (give the players of the "smart" characters hints).


Trekkie90909 wrote:
I like riddles if they're well implemented. Most of the time they are not. If you're in the forgotten temple of the snake god for example your riddle should not be about a modern card game. It's been a few years since I've seen one in a game, and I'm not sure I've ever seen one that was well suited to the scenario.

I agree, though I generally as a player suck at riddles, the players I dm are pretty good. I try to make sure the riddle is relevent to the dungeon they are in. As far as the 10 int commoner vs the 18 int wizard on solving riddles early on shouldn't be a problem of who's smarter on paper. I can easily see the common folk to help pass the time during the drugery of doing common chores and trying to out riddle each other as a form of entertainment. Jusr my opinion.


Are riddles not more about wisdom than intelligence?
Unless the riddle is pure math which you can brute force through with sheer cold reasoning or something.


mplindustries wrote:


And I like when the player gets to solve them rather than the 26 Int wizard just rolling and getting it right. It's not like the 26 Int wizard can just roll int to cast the very best spell at the enemies, or place that cloudkill perfecly, or move tactically around the battlefield, or automatically choose his own magical gear...

Definitely in agreement here. They're also good for keeping the guy who just smashes stuff from taking over the game; nope, sorry, you've got to get into the forbidden temple of mystery before you start killing its guardians.

The only real problem with riddles is that if a group can't solve one then it can hold up the adventure. A GM can give hints based on good role playing and a little on good dice rolling if this happens,


RDM42 wrote:

It's simple: if you have players that like riddles and puzzles, give them riddles and puzzles. If they don't like them, then don't because it will be a pointless waste of time.

Yes, this nails it. I like riddles and puzzles so I like to have them in the game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

DAMN IT GANDALF, why couldn't you figure out how to open the Doors to Moria, you just had to let the hobbit from hobbiton figure it out.

Sovereign Court

I don't see the problem.

By the logic of High Int/Wis knowing riddles & low Int/Wis not knowing them, the GM should change how the characters act entirely!

"Oh - Barbarian player - I'm sorry, but your character isn't smart/wise enough to lay in ambush. Plus - they're wearing red. You charge!"

"Oh - Magus player - your character is much smarter than your dumb self, so they'd know to 5ft step that way after their attack to avoid being flanked by the guy who's about to charge you. I'll just move him for you."

Etc

This logic would make the GM basically control the characters based upon their stats - not something you want them to be doing.

(For this reason - I actually wish that Intelligence & Wisdom weren't actual stats - replacing them with Mental Sharpness & Willpower respectively, or something else somewhat more vague.)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


(For this reason - I actually wish that Intelligence & Wisdom weren't actual stats - replacing them with Mental Sharpness & Willpower respectively, or something else somewhat more vague.)

I agree i've been trying to turn them in quantifiable substances.

Intelligence would be education (formal or from life experience, since this is all it seems to cover)

Wisdom is your mental reflexes, as it lets you react quickly or process information quickly and correctly, such as perception and sense motive, and react to mental attacks.

charisma is your force of will (since it governs "will" casting and your ability to motivate and influence people)

Grand Lodge

How i solve this problem.

I allow the group try to solve the riddle off character, if they do, i roll tests of knowledge, sense motive or the likes. If the CD is reached, the solution they came off game can be spoken.

If they don't solve the riddle off game, i let them roll tests so i can give hints, then, if they solve off game, i allow the solving ingame with tests. (sometimes with higher CDs, the more the hints i gave, the harder the CD is).


In my games, Attribute checks are 3d6 rather than d20. It feels wrong for luck to be more important than your character's abilities until the character has a 30 in the relevant attribute.

With 3d6, you're much more likely to get 10 + your ability modifier as the result, while still allowing for some wiggle room with getting lucky.

Sovereign Court

Cheapy wrote:
In my games, Attribute checks are 3d6 rather than d20. It feels wrong for luck to be more important than your character's abilities until the character has a 30 in the relevant attribute.

Do you include Initiative checks - since they're technically Dex checks? (I did that for awhile back in 3.5 - it ended up being a slight buff for rogues as they were more likely to catch people flat-footed, especially ranged rogues who could full attack in the first round.)


Yep. Means that people who spend the feat basically always get to go before most people. We've used the rule for 2 or 3 campaigns, and it's worked out very well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Riddle-solving is not necessarily a factor of intelligence.

Wisdom, insight, experience, even perception can all be factors. There is no reason to expect Gandalf to solve the riddle at the door of Durin than there is to expect Frodo to solve it (or at least solve the riddle's idea if not the specific word).

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
RDM42 wrote:

It's simple: if you have players that like riddles and puzzles, give them riddles and puzzles. If they don't like them, then don't because it will be a pointless waste of time.

This sums it up mostly for me.

My issue with Riddles is that most require excessive Player Knowledge and many also have no context in game. Word play riddles fall in to this category. They require play knowledge in the oddities of the English Language.

Now sometimes I have seen riddles be world specific. But once again, either the Player has read the obscure source or did not.

Rarely have I seen the information to solve the riddle be presented in the game itself.

With that said: I would strong break the "Player to Character" relationship when it comes to riddle solving. The Group as a whole can discuss it. The characters with the correct stats maybe the ones who have this flash of insight, but allow the group's intellect be the character's intellect.


Currently prepping Heresy of Man pt. 2, which contains one of the worst riddles I have ever heard.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Lamontius wrote:
Currently prepping Heresy of Man pt. 2, which contains one of the worst riddles I have ever heard.

?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
Currently prepping Heresy of Man pt. 2, which contains one of the worst riddles I have ever heard.
?

"What's brown and rhymes with Snoop?"

Not sure how that one made it into a PF module, but there you have it.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
Currently prepping Heresy of Man pt. 2, which contains one of the worst riddles I have ever heard.
?

"What's brown and rhymes with Snoop?"

Not sure how that one made it into a PF module, but there you have it.

What's wrong with a dirt road having a loop?

Or a nice beef soup?

Or a brown colored sports coup?

Or a wooden hula hoop?

(Frankly - I'm more offended by the riddle having so many correct disperate answers than the obvious intended one.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tried it a few times. Decent flavor, massive waste of time.

If it's something important, you're in trouble if your players don't get it and half the time someone will just look it up online if they can't solve it right there.

Puzzling out a riddle is fun in a narrative, but in a game it tends to either stump the players, leading to long, boring stretches of them trying to figure it out and getting frustrated or someone gets it right away and you might as well have just told them the information you wanted them to get in a less roundabout way.


There are a lot of situations in RPGs where there's a conflict between the intellect, imagination, social skills and knowledge of the player versus those of the character.

Sometimes in RPGs I've had the satisfaction of doing something clever. I worked out who the traitor was, where the trap/ambush would be, the right thing to say to the suspicious guards, the optimum creature to summon to win the battle... All these were occasions where I used my own brain instead of the brain of my PC. If I'd done these things by rolling a dice, they probably wouldn't have been half as satisfying.

Haydon Mehmet wrote:
because I don't know the answer to a question he doesn't know, which I kinda think defeats the purpose of role playing.

What purpose is that?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Tried it a few times. Decent flavor, massive waste of time.

If it's something important, you're in trouble if your players don't get it and half the time someone will just look it up online if they can't solve it right there.

Puzzling out a riddle is fun in a narrative, but in a game it tends to either stump the players, leading to long, boring stretches of them trying to figure it out and getting frustrated or someone gets it right away and you might as well have just told them the information you wanted them to get in a less roundabout way.

I will say this.... giving noncritical information in a riddle or other artistic fashion (like a prophesy that you may only recognize in retrospect) can be fun for the players.

A silly example:

Roses are red, melons are green
The key to the treasure can never be seen

.... because the key is kept in a room with a permanent darkness spell on it, or perhaps is an invisible key on the king's key ring. Of course, a simple knock spell will also open the treasure chest, or you can bash it open with a mace, so no one's going to be frustrated if they can't get it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Haven't read so might have been mentioned. But you could have the group of players be the thoughts of the highest int person, thus he's the one that's going to actually solve or voice the answer, but all the players can help figure it out to simulate a smart person.


This runs into the problem that it's hard to guess how the players will react. You prep a really hard riddle and one of the plays happens to think in the right way and answers before your mouth closes.

Another day, you have a really simple riddle and there's been clues to it all through the dungeon and nobody connects the dots. They latch onto something irrelevant and they're sure it's the answer. They follow it down a torturous path of logic.

The problem is when a game gets derailed by it. I think you should set a time limit on riddles and puzzles and use rolls when you get to that point. If there are ways to do clues, then parcel them out during that time frame.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Philo Pharynx wrote:


The problem is when a game gets derailed by it. I think you should set a time limit on riddles and puzzles and use rolls when you get to that point. If there are ways to do clues, then parcel them out during that time frame.

The times I've used riddles - if you failed it just set off a nasty trap/encounter. Totally survivable - but they could have skipped it entirely if they'd answered the riddle.

Editor

6 people marked this as a favorite.

My group loves riddles, but I agree that they need to be done right. Here's my outline for a good riddle encounter:

For each riddle, write not only the main riddle ahead of time, but also 3–4 hints, getting progressively more obvious.

1. Hand the players the riddle, and have them read it aloud. Give them time to discuss the riddle, and maybe try one or two solutions if they come up with something quickly. During this time, shut the heck up except to describe their physical surroundings if they ask.

2. If there's no motion within 2 minutes or so, have them lean on their characters by rolling Knowledge checks, Wisdom checks, Perception checks, whatever. For each successful check, give them the next hint in your queue, but only one hint per minute or so. This mechanically represents a character suddenly remembering something about the lore of the dungeon, or the sigil on someone's armor last week, or any number of details that the characters might remember (but the players, let's be honest, probably don't). It's best if you use a few different skills for each hint so the whole party can get involved.

3. If the players still haven't divined the answer after you've given them all the hints, the next character to succeed at a check solves the riddle.

You can add or remove hints based on your players' patience and love of puzzles, but this gives players a chance to feel clever while also having a good chance to get through the encounter.

Of course, if there's no risk, there's no reward, so don't be afraid to punish wrong answers—a sprung trap, a boon withheld, a monster spawned, etc.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:
Currently prepping Heresy of Man pt. 2, which contains one of the worst riddles I have ever heard.

What?! You have a problem with my riddles? They are ingenious!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Riddleotep, King of Sphinxes wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
Currently prepping Heresy of Man pt. 2, which contains one of the worst riddles I have ever heard.
What?! You have a problem with my riddles? They are ingenious!

I will destroy everything you have ever loved

which I assume is mostly riddles


DM_Blake wrote:

Riddle-solving is not necessarily a factor of intelligence.

Wisdom, insight, experience, even perception can all be factors. There is no reason to expect Gandalf to solve the riddle at the door of Durin than there is to expect Frodo to solve it (or at least solve the riddle's idea if not the specific word).

+1.

I Know more examples like this but I can't remember the names of the movies right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Tried it a few times. Decent flavor, massive waste of time.

If it's something important, you're in trouble if your players don't get it and half the time someone will just look it up online if they can't solve it right there.

Puzzling out a riddle is fun in a narrative, but in a game it tends to either stump the players, leading to long, boring stretches of them trying to figure it out and getting frustrated or someone gets it right away and you might as well have just told them the information you wanted them to get in a less roundabout way.

I will say this.... giving noncritical information in a riddle or other artistic fashion (like a prophesy that you may only recognize in retrospect) can be fun for the players.

A silly example:

Roses are red, melons are green
The key to the treasure can never be seen

.... because the key is kept in a room with a permanent darkness spell on it, or perhaps is an invisible key on the king's key ring. Of course, a simple knock spell will also open the treasure chest, or you can bash it open with a mace, so no one's going to be frustrated if they can't get it.

You ninja'd what I wanted to say.

The best use for this kind f puzzles are for non-critical stuff, or even complete optional things, like extra loot or something. The dangerous way to use puzzles (AKA the bad one IMHO) are the ones that are needed to complete the main line of the adventure.


Joe Homes wrote:

My group loves riddles, but I agree that they need to be done right. Here's my outline for a good riddle encounter:

For each riddle, write not only the main riddle ahead of time, but also 3–4 hints, getting progressively more obvious.

1. Hand the players the riddle, and have them read it aloud. Give them time to discuss the riddle, and maybe try one or two solutions if they come up with something quickly. During this time, shut the heck up except to describe their physical surroundings if they ask.

2. If there's no motion within 2 minutes or so, have them lean on their characters by rolling Knowledge checks, Wisdom checks, Perception checks, whatever. For each successful check, give them the next hint in your queue, but only one hint per minute or so. This mechanically represents a character suddenly remembering something about the lore of the dungeon, or the sigil on someone's armor last week, or any number of details that the characters might remember (but the players, let's be honest, probably don't). It's best if you use a few different skills for each hint so the whole party can get involved.

3. If the players still haven't divined the answer after you've given them all the hints, the next character to succeed at a check solves the riddle.

You can add or remove hints based on your players' patience and love of puzzles, but this gives players a chance to feel clever while also having a good chance to get through the encounter.

Of course, if there's no risk, there's no reward, so don't be afraid to punish wrong answers—a sprung trap, a boon withheld, a monster spawned, etc.

This is essentially what I do for riddles.

Riddles should always be tied into the world/setting. Riddles exist within a context and the players need that context most of the time to solve them.

Scarab Sages

Lamontius wrote:
Riddleotep, King of Sphinxes wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
Currently prepping Heresy of Man pt. 2, which contains one of the worst riddles I have ever heard.
What?! You have a problem with my riddles? They are ingenious!

I will destroy everything you have ever loved

which I assume is mostly riddles

I was just trying to add a bit of intellectual stimulation, that's all! What did I do to deserve such animosity?!

Here's another riddle for you: Who's part animal, part man, and going to be crying himself to sleep tonight?

A sphinx!

*runs off crying*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're going to use riddles, there is one and only one rule.

Do not determine the answer yourself.

Come up with an awesome riddle, and let the party figure it out for themselves. The best answer for the story that produces the most interesting followup process is the right one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think riddles are a lot of fun, and I have no more issue with the player, rather than the character, solving them than I have with the player, rather than the character, determining their combat tactics or which spells to prepare. Problem solving, including riddles, seems to me to be a core focus of the hobby.

That said, I am well aware that a riddle can be frustrating and something that seems easy can end up totally stumping the party. So I always make sure that either the riddle isn't necessary to solve, or that after the players have given it a go they will get hints etc.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The OP is SPOT on. Whenever I don't delete riddles from adventures I'm developing, I always strive to include rules for how the characters can solve the riddles if the PCs can't.

I mean... we don't require every player at the table who plays the mighty barbarian to perform feats of strength each time she wants to smash down a door or swing an axe. Why would we require the player at the table who's playing the Intelligence 20 bard who's got skill focus in all the Knowledges to rely on the player's likely less-impressive knowledge in order to solve a riddle? Makes no sense to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is odd I was talking to friend about this last night after a game.

The times when I see riddle go bad in game is when the GM does not write the riddle for his audience. I mean either the riddle should be based on general knowledge or something you know the players know well.

For instance I know a lot about PF and Golarion...I could probably figure most riddles based on those...but I have no idea about golf...so a riddle based on golf would just annoy me and frustrate me.


Haydon Mehmet wrote:

hey, do you guys feel that posing riddles to the players hurts the rp, cause I kinda do. it just kind of irks me when a wizard with an intelligence of 20 doesn't know the answer to a riddle but the barbarian with an intelligent score of 5 does. I mean, there have been times where i've played a character whose smarter than I am, but because I don't know the answer to a question. he doesn't know, which I kinda think defeats the purpose of role playing.

anyway, what do you guys think?

We're cool with it. Our group also understands it's the real-life flesh and blood players playing a game, not non-existent fictional characters.

If the players can choose their wizards' spells and/or choose their tactics in combat, they can solve riddles, too.

(We're not super-uber into "rp" so much that riddles would mess with it.)


John Kretzer wrote:


For instance I know a lot about PF and Golarion...I could probably figure most riddles based on those...but I have no idea about golf...so a riddle based on golf would just annoy me and frustrate me.

"To find the treasure room and advance the plot, Archie is in the sand."

Where do you look for the next clue? [An open challenge to everyone on this thread.]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
I mean... we don't require every player at the table who plays the mighty barbarian to perform feats of strength each time she wants to smash down a door or swing an axe. Why would we require the player at the table who's playing the Intelligence 20 bard who's got skill focus in all the Knowledges to rely on the player's likely less-impressive knowledge in order to solve a riddle? Makes no sense to me.

Then why do you allow the player at the table to choose a wizard's spells? They aren't wizards, can't cast spells, and aren't (necessarily) super intelligent. Why do you allow the player at the table to choose a fighter's tactics? They're not (necessarily) tactical soldiers.

(There's lots of good reasons for groups to not use riddles - but the above examples aren't actual reasons... as they're entirely inconsistent. I'm having a bit of fun here, but the above is inconsistent - and everyone will draw the line somewhere... differently.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
I always strive to include rules for how the characters can solve the riddles if the PCs can't.

Heh, James, you've been playing too much; you're starting to confuse your players with their characters. Take a step back, man, ease it down...


Riddles are mostly a losing proposition anyway. I'm glad JJ deletes them from his modules.

Possible outcomes:
1. Some player has heard it before. He shouts out "Man, who crawls on four legs as an infant, walks on two legs as an adult, and walks with a cane as an elderly citizen." Boring.
2. No player figures it out. Eventually the group just gives up and moves on. Frustrating.
3. No player figures it out. Eventually the wizard makes an INT check, GM tells him the answer. Frustrating, then boring.
4. The players sweat on it for a long time until someone finally figures it out. Frustrating, but eventually rewarding - I hope the reward is worth the frustration!
5. The players think for a short while until someone figures it out. This might be kinda fun, a short distraction and a quick fun solution.

Since #5 is the only desired outcome, and the other outcomes are at least just as likely if not more likely, the chances are very good that the riddle is just frustrating and/or boring.


Arnwyn wrote:


Then why do you allow the player at the table to choose a wizard's spells? They aren't wizards, can't cast spells, and aren't (necessarily) super intelligent. Why do you allow the player at the table to choose a fighter's tactics? They're not (necessarily) tactical soldiers.

Apples and oranges. Picking tactics or spells poorly usually doesn't block progression in an adventure. Being unable to solve a riddle or puzzle tends to be a blocker. That justifies additional treatment to enable PCs to get past the obstacle.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Apples and oranges. Picking tactics or spells poorly usually doesn't block progression in an adventure. Being unable to solve a riddle or puzzle tends to be a blocker. That justifies additional treatment to enable PCs to get past the obstacle.

Untrue. That's only if the adventure has been designed that way. That's an adventure design problem, not a riddle problem. (I can do that too, with a big adamantine wall.)


Riddles have to be deployed right. They're something that can open the door to "BONUS TREASURE ROOOOOM!!" not the thing that prevents the players from progressing. If there is a riddle on the door you have to go through, there should be some way around it or characters that get good rolls should get a hint or two. Riddles can be a lot of fun though.

I also take issue with the idea that Int is the only thing that could govern riddle solving. I scored a 171 on the LSAT but can't do a NYT crossword puzzle to save my life. They're different puzzles. I can do a Sudoku alright, but those block puzzles where you shift squares around to get one out kick my ass. But I know people who barely graduated high school who tear through book upon book of puzzles, and annihilate puzzle games. It's also a part of studies on puzzles (especially those sites that promise to "make you smarter") that, in a lot of cases, getting good at a puzzle doesn't do much to increase IQ, it just makes you good at the puzzle in question, and that even being good at one puzzle doesn't necessarily help you with other ones.

Riddles in my games usually turn into party events. It doesn't matter who answers. And if the question is being asked of one character, everyone can still chime in and work together on it.

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Riddles in RP's (whats your opinion.) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.